oops, reality, sorry! i realize this was a completely ridiculous thing to suggest, and i might as well have been talking about dinosaurs and russell crowe (!?!?)
i think the festival can only go positive from where it's at. it's never made money. maybe now it can proceed with a realistic financial outlook. it's changed hands since those controversy's anyways... you're trying to coddle this thing imo. and overstating the importance of the media. corporate sponsors are surely privvy to more inside information than what's printed in newspapers, i think they hear about the sketchiness whether it's in print or not. negative media doesnt help, but it's just a reaction to REAL problems that can't be swept aside! i think the management of the festival has played the largest part in the festival's struggle, uhhh?? for instance, hugely inflated numbers matched with hugely disappointing returns considering those numbers, that make potential sponsors scratch their heads incredulously? >Yeah, that's a good idea. Let's encourage the media to find as much negative stuff as possible on the fest and question *everything* and scare off all sponsors so it doesn't happen *ever* again. I think we should also implicate the festival in: 1. Third World Debt 2. Terrorism 3. Breakdown of Jennifer Aniston/Brad Pitt's marriage (Brad spending too much time planning his attendance, Jen got mad, etc) 4. Russell Crowd phone rage (phone repairman still recovering from festival weekend) 5. the extinction of dinosaurs Seriously if there *is* a huge story I have *no doubt* it will be exposed. But whether that's a good thing for a festival or not, or Detroit, I don't know. I think media reports have played a large part in the festival's struuggle - a lot of things in the past that should have been resolved privately have been played out in the public arena which is not a good thing for the festival's future. What do others think? ;) > i know geez, no wonder they ran into a few financial problems with the > crowd estimation off by ohh just 1.4 million people or so. > > thats way beyond miscounting or inflation, that's fraud isnt it? i mean > using these imaginary numbers to attract bigname sponsors and overvalue > fees for tents and booths etc....??? > > i mean seems like a huge story to me...no?
